“Tom Bancroft’s comments to the press about not knowing the
financial status of the organization are simply not accurate. There
is nothing more needing saying than that I was there, on the board
when he was hired. He knew full well what the situation was. He’s a
smart guy, who knows how to read a financial report. But this isn’t
about Tom. It’s about the Salish Sea.”

—–

When a well-established institution like People for Puget Sound
suddenly disbands, it’s like a death in the family for supporters
and colleagues. Questions about what happened hang in the air.
Explanations never seem adequate.

How could People for Puget Sound manage to survive and wield
great influence for 20 years only to go under a year and a half
after a new executive director takes control?

Kathy Fletcher, who helped form the organization in 1991 and
served as its executive director for 20 years, seemed happy to pass
the reins of the organization to Tom Bancroft, who had worked at
the top levels of the National Audobon Society, Wilderness Society
and other groups.

Here’s what Kathy said at her retirement party:

“Beyond what you can read about Tom on paper, I can now say,
after working with him for a little over two months, he is the
right human being to lead People for Puget Sound. His judgment is
excellent; his instincts are great; and his people skills are
terrific. People for Puget Sound is in good hands.”

Tom
Bancroft

I’ll come back to what Kathy told me today, but Tom’s take on
the situation is that People for Puget Sound grew faster than
revenues allowed from about 2007 to 2011 (before his arrival), and
he was unable to make enough adjustments to keep things going, no
matter how hard he tried.

“This was not expected when I took the job,” Tom told me. “I
discovered soon after I got here that the organization was larger
than we could afford.”

He says he took over as director in April of 2011 and within a
month began to eye the balance sheet and worry about the
future.

“I said, ‘My god, what have I gotten into,” he noted.

The organization had taken on a $300,000 loan in 2010, using as
collateral more than $500,000 in reserve funds.

“We had a lot of reserves, but we had to contract back down to
what the revenues were,” he said.

Near the end of last year, six full-time and two part-time
staffers were laid off from a total staff of about 25 people.

A fund drive last spring could have helped restore the
organization to an even keel, but the effort failed to generate the
level of donations required for success.

In May, another five full-time staffers were laid off. Others
left on their own.

“It’s not that any one thing fell apart,” Tom said. “The
economic reality affects all funding. Foundations are not having as
much money as before. Individuals don’t have the money to give. It
is a tough time right now…

“I got to a point where I still needed to do cuts, and cutting
staff would not work, because we wouldn’t have enough people to run
the programs. I was caught in a bind.

“I thought we could try to squeeze through this. But I would
rather we protect the mission and keep it going than try to keep us
alive (until nothing is left).”

With board approval, Tom used most of the remaining reserve
funds to pay off the $300,000 loan. The remainder is going into a
transition effort designed to move the programs to other
environmental groups.

Kathy
Fletcher

Kathy Fletcher said she worked hard through the transition
period before her retirement in 2011 to make sure everything was in
order and a new director was prepared.

“This is shocking and sad,” she told me, referring to the news
that People for Puget Sound would come to an end. “I never would
have imagined that this would have happened.”

Kathy said when she left the organization, there was plenty of
money in the reserve fund to cover the $300,000 line of credit and
more. The group had been dipping into the reserve fund for two or
three years, she said, but that’s why the organization had amassed
such a large fund to begin with. The challenge, as it has always
been, was for the organization to raise donations, she said.

As with any nonprofit group, it takes constant attention to keep
the budget in balance, she said.

“Looking at how the economy has not bounced back, I can see that
some cutbacks may have been necessary. It requires constant effort,
sometimes a huge amount of effort.

“The fact that we borrowed against our line of credit was
daunting to the new director, but that was a challenge,” she told
me. “It meant a fund-raising burden, but it should not have
resulted in closing things down.”

Still, Kathy acknowledges that she has been completely gone from
the organization and does not wish to place blame now.

Mike Sato, one of the founders of People for Puget Sound and a
public communications expert, lost his job during last year’s
layoffs. Mike says the executive staff had worked for two years to
prepare for Kathy Fletcher’s departure and the transition to new
leadership.

“Some people will think that the charisma of the organization
went away with Kathy,” he said. “But we made a real effort to
establish the brand ‘People for Puget Sound.’ We were trying to
say, ‘We are 20 years old and moving ahead.’”

During the 20 years of the group’s existence, Sato recalls other
times when finances were tough.

“At times, some of us deferred salary to keep the organization
going. We did creative financing, but we always pulled through,
because we looked at this as a real cause rather than a balance
sheet.

“Would another group of people have done things differently?” he
wondered. “We did it because it was a cause, and you do whatever
needs to be done. It is not financially impossible.”

Tom Bancroft said he is proud of the advocacy and policy
accomplishments by the organization over the past year. He says he
and his staff worked hard on the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action
Agenda, on the Department of Ecology’s new statewide stormwater
permit and on agreements dealing with combined sewer overflows in
King County and the city of Seattle.

“If we can save the mission and keep the mission strong, I will
feel good about walking away from here,” Tom told me. “Puget Sound
is a fantastic body of water, and it’s critical to the well being
of the people who live here.”

To save the “mission” of People for Puget Sound, Bancroft wants
to shift policy, advocacy and education programs to the Washington
Environmental Council, an environmental group that he sees as an
ongoing “partner” in the effort to protect and restore Puget
Sound.

He expects WEC to sharpen its focus on Puget Sound and even keep
the name “People for Puget Sound” as a branch of the
organization.

Meanwhile, restoration programs — largely funded with government
grants — could be turned over to EarthCorps, another longterm
partner involved in restoration projects.

Where grants are involved, an agency sponsor will likely need to
approve the transfer of funds to any group taking over funded
programs.

Mike Sato said it will take a firm commitment from other
environmental organizations to keep up the watch dog functions
performed by People for Puget Sound — particularly when it comes to
oil-spill and vessel-related issues.

“Agencies will move forward,” Mike said, “but only as much as
there is a constituency saying these things must be done.

“We’ve been wanting the (Puget Sound) Partnership to get its act
together. We wanted to see the Partnership succeed. And now they
seem to be getting it together, and somebody needs to be a watch
dog so that things don’t fall by the wayside.

“It looks like the Partnership will be OK,” Sato added. “I’m
just sorry that People for Puget Sound will not be around.”

Bancroft expects the organization will disband by the end of
this month.

A dozen environmental groups say they will boycott the nine
“scoping meetings” the Navy is holding to kick off a new round of
studies regarding testing and training activities in the
Northwest.

In a letter dated March 13 (PDF 16 kb), the groups said the
format of the meetings is not designed to encourage public
discussion or even allow public comment. In addition, the Navy and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have ignored
ongoing calls for the Navy to better protect marine wildlife and
the environment along the Washington Coast and other biologically
important areas, they say.

Navy's Northwest testing
and training ranges. Click to enlarge.Map by U.S. Navy

The Navy will seek a new permit from NOAA for the incidental
harassment of marine mammals during testing and training
activities. Most of the activities are identical to what is taking
place now, but some new activities are added — including the
testing of sonar from ships docked at piers.

“As you know, the scoping process is the best time to identify
issues and provide recommendations to agencies on what should be
analyzed in the EIS. However, a process developed for activities
with controversial impacts, like those at issue here, that does not
provide opportunity for the public to testify or speak to a broader
audience, or to hear answers to questions raised by others, and
that fails to engage major population centers is not designed to
help citizens and organizations effectively participate in
agencies’ environmental reviews.”

A third-generation study of toxic pollution in Puget Sound
claims to be the best estimate so far of total amounts of toxics
entering Puget Sound each year.

New report on toxics in
Puget Sound (PDF 7.3 mb). Click to download.Washington Department of Ecology

As Craig Welch of the
Seattle Times points out in a story today, it’s a big
exaggeration to think that Puget Sound is suffering through enough
drips and drabs of oil — largely from vehicles — to equal an Exxon
Valdez spill every two years.

Craig is right to point out how previous studies overestimated
the amount of several toxics. After all, politicians having been
tossing around the dramatic Exxon Valdez analogy when it serves
their purposes. Still, the total amount of oil or any other
pollutant in Puget Sound is not really a good measure of the
problems we face.

If you want to understand pollution in a waterway, it’s better
to measure the concentration of the pollutant, see where that level
falls on a toxicity scale, then consider how fish and other
organisms are exposed to the pollution.

The new study for the Department of Ecology, titled “Toxics in
Surface Runoff to Puget Sound,” analyzed 21 chemicals or groups
of chemicals in 16 streams in the Puyallup and Snohomish river
watersheds. The watersheds contain all different land types —
commercial-industrial, residential, agricultural, forest, fields
and other undeveloped lands. The idea is that researchers could
extrapolate from these land types to represent all of Puget Sound.
But such an extrapolation still requires a number of assumptions,
which can throw off the estimates by wide margins.

At least we can say the latest study involved actual
water-quality sampling. Previous estimates — including those that
produced the Exxon Valdez analogy — were based on measurements of
stormwater in other parts of the country.

Coming out of the recent legislative session, People for Puget Sound wanted to
create some kind of video for Earth Day. But the group didn’t have
much money for production costs. So staffers approached the folks
at Visual Media
Group in Seattle.

“We get really serious about a whole lot of stuff,” said Mike
Sato, communications director for People for Puget Sound. Everyone
began thinking that it might be time to offer something humorous,
and folks at the VMG were willing to help.

“They came back with a script, saying it is going to be light,
but it is going to have a point,” Sato said.

After a few minor script changes, everyone was on board, and
producer Rich Rudy began working on casting, costumes and
locations.

If you haven’t viewed the video, called “Salmon Says, Fight
Pollution,” please do so now (by clicking on the video player
below). Then read on for more information about how this video came
about.

It was Cheryl Isen, a marketing and public relations expert with
connections to both People for Puget Sound and Visual Media Group,
who suggested the two groups work together.

“We were all too happy to throw in our time and do this PSA
(public service announcement) for them,” Rich Rudy of VMG told me.
“We are trying to give back to the community, and we had free rein
over the creatives.”

The actor in the salmon suit is Dartanion London, a standup
improv comedian who works in the U. District while attending
college. He also donated his time to the cause.

“We sent the script to him with the basic idea. We call it an
emotional map that he was going to improvise around,” Rich
said.

The production was more complicated than you might think. Every
location was approved with officials, from the Westlake Fountain to
the Pike Place Market to a pier owned by the Port of Seattle.
Bystanders in the video are volunteers who offered their services,
mostly folks associated with People for Puget Sound.

A costume was designed, put together and scheduled for delivery
on the day of the shoot. Then the seamstress called Rudy in tears.
The fish suit was gone. She had placed it in the backseat of her
Mercedes, and the car was stolen.

In a kind of gallows humor, the joke became: “If anyone sees a
guy in a fish suit driving around in a Mercedes, be sure to call
911,” according to Rich Rudy.

Some of the greatest moments occurred when the human-sized fish
became engaged in dialog with a salmon at Pike Place Market.
Unfortunately, one of the street musicians had been watching and
began singing as soon as the shooting started. The music drowned
out the dialog and most could not be used.

There is some talk about going back for another try at the fish
market. A video from the numerous funny outtakes also is in the
works, organizers say.

Of course, everyone hopes the PSA will appear on one of the
local television stations. But that will be up to the various PSA
coordinators who select which pieces to run in the various time
slots.

The first “State of the Sound” report issued by the Puget Sound
Partnership was announced yesterday with practically no
fanfare.

I recall that the Partnership’s predecessor group, the Puget
Sound Action Team, used to make a big deal out of these ecosystem
reports. Frankly, I had expected a major rollout, like that of the
Puget Sound Action Agenda — until I read through the document and
began to ask questions.

David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership,
told me the report was a “hybrid version.” Before the next formal
report is due in two years, he hopes to provide more meaningful
ecosystem-condition reports through a Web site.

The Partnership’s Science Panel called the report a
“transitional” document between descriptions of ecosystem
conditions in past “State of the Sound” reports and a new
“ecosystem-reporting framework” being developed for the Puget Sound
Partnership.

Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound,
said the document is not what the Legislature envisioned when it
laid out reporting requirements for the Partnership. Without better
indicators, benchmarks and long-term goals, nobody knows if the
Partnership is on track to restore Puget Sound to a healthy
condition by 2020, she said.

Fletcher has a unique perspective on this process. Besides
heading an environmental organization, she serves on the
Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board. She also was the first
executive director of the original Puget Sound panel — called the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authory (1983).

If you download the report, you may wish to read about the
Performance Management System being developed, which is described
in some detail, as well as a description of funding issues. Those
and a few other details are new additions to the “State of the
Sound.”

Because the Partnership is relying heavily on its Science Panel
to develop a system to measure changes in the ecosystem, I’ll
highlight a few of the problems, which the panel describes in its
section of the report:Continue reading →

Two hearings regarding proposed boating regulations to protect
Puget Sound orcas from noise and disturbance have brought out a
variety of opinions. Folks involved in the whale-watching industry
showed up in large numbers, as did sport and commercial
fishers.

Scott Veirs, who studies the acoustics of killer whales,
blogged about last night’s meeting in Seattle:

“Overall, there were strong objections to the entire suite of
alternatives — from the 200 yard viewing distance to the no-go
zone. People for Puget Sound went on record saying that a no-go
zone was a step too far. And Ken Balcomb (Center for Whale
Research) voted for no action.

“I was left with a profound disappointment that so many felt so
unfairly burdened by the proposed rules. If the people who most
intimately and consistently share the southern resident’s habitat
aren’t willing to make a sacrifice to preserve the basis of their
livelihoods, how can we expect the public to act selflessly for our
regional icons: the orca and the salmon?”

I thought the piece put together by reporter Mark Wright of
KCPQ-TV (viewer above right) provided a nicely summarized and
balanced perspective on the issue, though it did not examine the
scientific issue.

Federal officials are planning to put some heavy muscle on
persons responsible for polluting Chesapeake Bay.

It’s an approach that several environmental groups in the Puget
Sound region would like to see here.

“If the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan works, a bay
known for soft-touch oversight could become one of the most
aggressively regulated bodies of water in the country,” writes
David Fahrentold, a reporter for the
Washington Post.

Federal agencies today released seven draft reports calling for
increased accountability and expanded use of regulatory authorities
that can address pollution control and other issues. See “Chesapeake Bay
Executive Order.” Despite concerted efforts over the past 25
years, the health of Chesapeake Bay remains “exceptionally poor,”
federal officials say.

“We need bold new leadership, collective accountability by all
contributors to the Bay’s problems, and dramatic changes in
policies using all the tools at hand if we are to fulfill President
Obama’s goal for clean water throughout the region,” said EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson in a news
release (PDF 24 kb). “These reports bring us a step closer to
achieving the vision we all share for the future of the Chesapeake
Bay.”

The EPA has several programs that could force polluters to take
action. Through the years, the agency has been reluctant to use its
authority, preferring to gain voluntary compliance by producing
studies that show how bad things are getting. The Chesapeake Bay Program, a
multi-state, multi-jurisdiction organization, has been similarly
criticized.

Last May, Fahrentold wrote a story for the
Washington Post quoting Howard Ernst, a political science
professor whose book “Chesapeake Bay Blues” served as a call to
arms for Bay watchers.

Here’s Ernst’s key quote: “The question that’s before the bay
program today . . . is whether or not they’re going to be an
environmental implementation agency or they’re going to be a
study-and-suggest agency. And the jury’s still out.”

Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound,
has been observing Puget Sound up close for more years than she
wants to count. And for years she has been worried about similar
inaction. When Kathy read Ernst’s comment, she made this
notation in her blog:

This sounds a lot like an estuary near here. With a
comprehensive cleanup and management plan in place since December
1986, Puget Sound is still the object of almost endless discussion
— by scientists who want to come up with a perfect model of the
ecosystem’s complexity before saying for sure what we should do; by
politicians who don’t want to be nailed for advocating the land use
regulations or the money needed to do the job right; by polluters
and developers who know that prolonging the conversation also
postpones the day of reckoning.

We need actions that go directly to the bottom line of saving
Puget Sound:

Scientists: The perfect is the enemy of the good. By the time
you figure out exactly how Puget Sound is dying, it will be
dead.

Politicians: You are our leaders. You know the Sound needs more
than lip service and little bits of help here and there. Bold
action is needed, and you’re the ones who can make it happen.

Polluters and developers: Our economy is inextricably linked to
the quality of our environment. You and the Sound can both thrive,
but only if you get green. Really green. ASAP.

The Puget Sound Partnership has put together an Action Agenda
designed around the notion of getting people and agencies to commit
themselves to doing the right thing for Puget Sound then holding
their feet to the fire. In Puget Sound, the federal government is
taking somewhat of a back seat to the new state-based
organization.

Will the revised Chesapeake model work better than the one we’ve
approved for Puget Sound? I can’t say, but you can be sure we’ll be
watching both waterways.

Environmental organizations were celebrating tonight after a
federal judge blocked work on Glacier Northwest’s controversial
gravel-mining operation on Maury Island.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that no more work can
be done on a loading dock until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
prepares a full-blown environmental impact statement. The Corps
also must “consult” with other agencies about harm that the project
could cause to threatened and endangered species.

Shortly after Martinez issued his ruling, I received an e-mailed
statement from state Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark, who
oversees a state lease for the gravel-mining operation.

“Due to the ruling in federal court today, the lease NW
Aggregates has with the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources is no longer in good standing,” Goldmark said.

“It is imperative that we protect Puget Sound. The judge
recognized there are potential impacts from this project on
threatened and endangered species, like orca and salmon. The ruling
cites many of the same issues that we have raised in recent
months.”

Federal biologists are really stirring things up in Northern
California. They have determined that the irrigation system in the
vast Central Valley farm region jeopardizes the future of several
species of fish as well as Puget Sound’s killer whales.

The killer whale angle is worth some discussion — but first the
larger picture.

“What is at stake here is not just the survival of species but
the health of entire ecosystems and the economies that depend on
them,” Rod Mcinnis, southwest regional director for
NOAA’s Fisheries Service said in a news release. “We are ready
to work with our federal and state partners, farmers and residents
to find solutions that benefit the economy, environment and Central
Valley families.”

Changing the water system to meet the requirements of threatened
and endangered species could reduce water supplies by 5 to 7
percent, significantly affecting farm production and drinking water
supplies. Several proposed projects — valued at hundreds of
millions of dollars — could help balance that out. To see the
technical reports, go to NOAA’s Web site on the
issue.

“This federal biological opinion puts fish above the needs of
millions of Californians and the health and security of the world’s
eighth largest economy. The piling on of one federal court decision
after another in a species-by-species approach is killing our
economy and undermining the integrity of the Endangered Species
Act. I will be asking for a meeting with Secretary Salazar and
Secretary Locke to discuss our concerns with these biological
opinions, and my Administration will be pursuing every possible
avenue to reconcile the harmful effects of these decisions.”

It’s interesting to see the federal biologists address the
plight of the Southern Resident killer whales with respect to water
use in California. These orcas frequent Puget Sound, but they are
spending a great deal of their time along the West Coast down to
Monterey Bay. The bottom line in the biological opinion is that
salmon availability along the coast could be a key factor in
whether the population is able to avoid extinction.

Environmental groups were quick to argue that if water
operations in Northern California can raise the risk of extinction
to intolerable levels, then surely the dams on the Columbia River
ought to be a concern.

“The recent National Marine Fisheries Service conclusion linking
destruction of salmon habitat to harm to killer whales is a breath
of fresh air,” said Kathy Fletcher, executive director for
People for Puget Sound in a statement. “Our killer whales are
at critically low numbers, and NMFS has recognized that what we do
to salmon in freshwater impacts our orcas in the ocean. But it
doesn’t make sense to protect salmon for whales to eat in
California while at the same time ignoring the effect of dams on
fish in the whales’ backyard.”

The issue of what to do about the dams remains before a federal
judge. The Obama administration is considering whether to continue
with the Bush approach to leave the dams in place or revisit the
issue.

“The fiction that the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers have
no effect on the food supply for orcas is one of many failings in
the Columbia and Snake River biological opinion,” said Steve
Mashuda of
Earthjustice, which represents the groups in the case. “Our
killer whales shouldn’t have to travel all the way to Monterey Bay
to find a decent meal.”

Glacier Northwest has begun work on the controversial pier that
will eventually support its gravel-mining operation on Maury
Island. See updated story by Leslie Brown in the Vashon
Beachcomber.

Meanwhile, a protest demonstration got underway this morning
near the construction site. Kathy Fletcher of People for Puget
Sound reported about 50 protesters as well as some 10 dinghies
and kayaks at 8:30 a.m. this morning.

Yesterday, a contingent of 20 to 30 killer whales — apparently
including members from all three Puget Sound pods — visited the
South Sound area, not far from the Glacier site. I thought maybe
they had come south to join the protest, but during the night they
turned north and came up through Puget Sound.

If you recall, the orcas were cited among reasons to deny the
construction activity in an aquatic reserve frequented by the
whales in winter.

As of 11:30 a.m. today, the orcas were in Admiralty Inlet north
of the Kitsap Peninsula, according to Howard Garrett of Orca
Network, who was among the widely scattered whales when I talked to
him by phone.

See Orca Network for
reports of whale travels. In case you’re not aware of it, anyone
can sign up for e-mail reports of whale sightings, typically
compiled at the end of each day.